More attacks on Perdue over SecureID

It is shameful that Governor Perdue is wasting his time and energy in promoting a crack down on another non-existent problem. Undocumented immigrants do NOT have access to driver’s licenses and have not had access for quite some time. That is why Latino advocates were pressing the state legislature several years ago to expand access to driver’s licenses without considering immigration status. When pressed for specific instances of fraud that have taken place, Governor Perdue and his team could not come up with one specific instance. This is simply more smoke and mirrors for Georgia voters during election time.

The problem is that “undocumented immigrants” do indeed have access to driver’s licenses by using phony documents. As Jeff pointed out, some opposed to the Governor’s proposal are worried about racial profiling.

I would think groups such as GALEO would want to see steps taken to insure that those who obtain a drivers license are in fact here legally. If we knew that everyone who had a Georgia’s driver’s license was here legally, racial problems would surely diminish.

Share this:

15 comments

I think groups such as GALEO would prefer that Perdue go after those producing fake documents and taking advantage of people who fill a legitimate business need here. Also, the REAL solution is a worker program which allows these people contributing to our economy to work here legally. Perdue should really be pressing the GOP dominated GA congressional delegation to take some real action on immigration. That is the point, not racial profiling. Perdue is trying to act like he’s doing something when his entire party at the national level is doing squat. It is just an act.

I’m sure if all these undocumented/illegal immigrants were vaguely European looking and spoke good or even broken English, we wouldn’t be discussing this. Inflammatory, I know, but heartfelt. I truly believe that ultimate source of all the anger is ethnocentrism, even racism. I cynically believe that those who use it as an election year vehicle know that, too. They play to the baser instincts of the electorate to get people to the polls. It’s the same old tactic. See, e.g., gay marriage 2004, confederate flag 2002…

Ultimately, crack down on the fake documents, crack down on the borders, crack down on the real criminals. I just can’t get worked up about this.

“If we knew that everyone who had a Georgia’s driver’s license was here legally, racial problems would surely diminish.”

I’m curious what racial problems you are referring to? Do you mean agitation between the races? For instance, DA King set up the Dustin Inman Society after a white child was killed by a latino illegal immigrant as far as I understand it. However sad and completely tragic that this child died, many children are killed by bad drivers regardless of race. This person’s race and even immigration status had nothing to do with it as far as I know. Was he fleeing the police? If so, then the Dustin Inman Society should address police chases, stopping criminals from fleeing, keeping criminals behind bars longer, etc. If the argument if he wasn’t here to start with, that would have prevented that, enough said, there is an inconsistency. What if a European tourist were to have killed a child in America (I’m sure that has happened)? Should we start a society against tourists? There is an economic argument for both immigrants and tourists to be allowed in the country.

There is a tone of racism that creeps around the edges of this debate (not necessarily on this board), especially when something like the Dustin Inman Society gets involved. Did anyone get a chance to read the Creative Loafing’s publication regarding the 1906 Atlanta race riots? As a lead up to that, they collected a number of publications at the time calling for action because blacks were raping white women. So, some whites went after some blacks because of some incidents that probably did not happen. Even if there were some crimes, individuals committed these crimes, not a race.

I just want to earnestly encourage everyone to not let race influence this debate in an manner. Because it does matter. There are hate groups, including the Klan, still active in Georgia that are targeting Latinos. And these sort of debates, where racism may still come into play should be regarded with thoughtfulness and sincerity.

And Jeff, I’m interested what you think the economic reprecussions would be if all the laws were enforced? Many big businesses and laissez-faire Republican types don’t want this enforcement.

Like bird said, I can’t see selective law enforcement as an electoral positive. Might have to actually talk about justice. Then, Pandora’s box is open. Who’s going to close it?

Can you imagine not using the word fair?

Just so scary to think every law gets enforced with equal weight. Especially with the average speed on I285 somewhere around 87 -90 miles per hour. Just rounding up the speeders would stop the economy. Not enough tow trucks, jails, court rooms … just for that one offense.

Which law would get priority? How or who would decide? Do we go door to door investigating each house, one at a time? Building code violations? OSHA regs? Do I have to tie my purchase receipt to every thing I own to prove I’m not a thief?

Can I make an accusation about my neighbor and the police NOT investigate? Isn’t that a crime? Who will enforce that law? If I give a tip to the police and it doesn’t prove true, do I go to jail for false accusation?

That’s selective enforcement. With limited resources, someone gets to break the law and get away with it. With unlimited resources, we have a cop for every citizen. Then, no one dares to break the law.

“Who shall guard the Guardians? Who shall make sure the Guardians make no mistakes?”

There is no reason for any illegal immigrant from any nation to seek a drivers license here in the United States. You do not hear those of us who are legal complaining about not being able to get one. We may have to wait in long lines but that is another story for another day. It seems as though GALEO has forgotten why illegal immigrants have been targeted. They are illegal and have no right to be here. People from other countries do not have a right to be here. People who come here legally do so because our government grants them access. It does not matter who was here first and who lost their land 200 years ago because non of us were displaced by these actions. The United States is not the only place where people can find jobs. We may pay more than they do in Mexico or Central America but that does not mean that they have to come here for work.

Your hyperbolic hypotheticals assume there’s a nation to begin with; the difference is when you drive 90 down 285, its not a direct threat to the sovereingty of the country; you’re just in a hurry (and breaking the law). When someone crosses the border undocumented, that poses a direct and legitimate risk to national security and sovereignty.

If even wider and more rampant illegal immigration occurred, I sincerely question the ability of our government, who’s charge is to protect the country from such criminal activity. ‘

I guess to point it bluntly, when it comes down to the line, I’m in favor of a country that has trouble enforcing speed limits more than I favor having no country at all. That’s the difference.

Okay, UGAMatthew, I’m with you on the risk to national security, but I’m not quite sure what the hell you’re talking about with “risk to soverignty.” Are we being taken over from within? Invasion of the body snatchers? Seriously, it’s one thing to claim that illegal immigrants drive down wages for legal citizens (they definitely do), but it’s another thing to claim that their presence threatens the very foundations of our republic…

What happens 40 years into the future, when Hispanics, by larger majorities, DO takeover lots of different public roles and DO decide to change the laws into THEIR favor only, and thus destroy the concept of the Rule of Law?

I very much enjoy your comments on this blog. I don’t always agree or disagree. I just think most of the time you have a point.

Your point is … majority rule isn’t going to be fun when you and I are in the minority?

I’m very gently trying to say that the history of the “rule of law” would not support putting capital letters on the r and l.

Can you say only property owners have a right to vote? Only men have a right to vote? In Daley’s Chicago, only Democrats have a right to work in state job?

Do we really think corporations have the same legal rights and protections as individuals? (COME ON! Corporations were created with paper and pen by government)

Or, today, that owning property gives super rights?

Or, that place of birth makes us better people?

Ah, the cosmic accident of my birth, that it made me an American. What is it that I will do in life that will be worthy of all those georgraphic advantages? I question if I am made better or handicapped by random events …

What happens, Bill, if we don’t leave a legacy to the next generation? Do they invent their own legacy as if we never existed?

And, if we leave an imperfect legacy, being imperfect people, will the next generation still find their own way in the world?

Bill, that’s a rather ridiculous hypothetical, isn’t it? Hispanics are going to take over and do WHAT exactly? Pass laws? Hold us all hostage at the ballot box? Make us all learn spanish? Why hasn’t every other wave of immigrants done this? Why are latinos any different than Italians or Irish, or any other growing minority?

While that may indeed change the dynamic within our country, it certainly won’t risk the very foundations of our republic or jeopardize our sovereignty. My point still stands.

I don’t see sovereignty threatened by illegal immigration. The inability to enforce a “border” means there is already a crisis of sovereignty.

How do we analyze this crisis of federal sovereignty? Did we give too much power to border states? That seems to be it. Do states look the other way when businesses fail to follow federal regs on hiring? Federal regs on contracting with federal dollars?

Texas decided it was a country onto itself. Now the other 47 continuous states get to live with that decision. (WAY too simple a response!)

To the point, failure of the federal government to punish border states for importing undocumented and illegal labor caused the sovereignty crisis. Importing is the correct word.

Texas is just one of the worst offenders, not the only offender.

Back to your point about enforcing speed limits vs. borders.

Not enforcing all the laws makes all the laws unenforcable. Meaning, they stop being laws. More like that Pirate Code, “They’re more like suggestions, really.”

If you won’t obey the worst law that has ever been written, what gives you any standing to insist the best law gets enforced? (That another of that hyperbolic hypertheticals I like so much)

We write a lot of bad laws. ie voter id, back dated tax breaks, use of eminent domain to build private commercial ventures, tax cuts for Paris Hilton (hoping she’ll spend more money to drive the economy), line item veto (not quite ready for the Constitution), jerrymanded districts, no oral sex laws (specifically in Georgia — ask Newt about his first divorce), no alcohol sales (county and that wonderful national prohibition), slavery, no hamburger sales on Sunday (Indiana during the Prohibition Era), it is illegal to say “Oh, Boy” in Jonesboro,( Georgia), it is illegal to change the clothes on a storefront mannequin unless the shades are down (Georgia), creating a state flower, tree, animal, insect, dirt (red clay), food (grits) …

The very concept of “nation” excludes the US. (You mentioned nation in your post)

I didn’t assume a “nation.” I postulated limited resources, existing laws, that existing laws had a purpose, society to enforce law, … nothing about a “nation.” I think you would mean, “state.”

Again, my clear as mud point… Do you want to live in a police state? All laws enforced completely.

Or, can you live with the imperfections of enough laws being enforced often enough to make breaking a law ‘likely’ to be punished … likely enough to deter anti-social behavior. (Such as driving 90 on 285 and maybe killing or maiming someone who is not driving 90?)

Obeying the laws remains a voluntary process. Until you get caught! (hypothetical you)

When you get caught, then you understand the voluntary, social benefits of obeying the law.

(Think Clinton)

It’s more or less when someone gets so far away from ‘correct’ social behavior that the law kicks them back into the accepted socialized behavior or kicks them out of society.

The immigration debate remains too full of “I want these laws enforced NOW!” No matter the resources lost in doing so.

I do want some security in exchange for being a member of a society. I don’t want so much security that I no longer belong to any society.